Gamism and Narrativism

[Ben Lehman]

1. Gamist play is rewarded with increased social esteem based on assessing one another's strategy and guts.

2. Narrativist play is rewarded with insight into one another as authors and into oneself via the text (in this case, I mean the SIS/transcript), at the visceral level typically associated with narrative fiction.

BL>  Sorry for the slow response here.

I disagree with your statement 1 or, rather, I agree that it represents a specific case of Gamist play but is potentially very misleading about the thing as a whole.  Let me take this step-by-step.

I picture "social esteem rewards" and its close cousin "social esteem competition" as a little knob attached to RPG (or really any social interaction), that can be turned up.  I think that, in the context of RPG games, this knob is *not* located at the creative agenda level, but rather way up at the social contract level.  To put it bluntly, any CA can have this sort of reward system immaterial of whether it is G, N or even S, and so your above description of Gamist play cuts off a whole chunk of Gamism, and also mixes some things that are rightly N and S into the bunch.

I think that the reward of Gamism is, to steal your sentence structure from number 2:  Insight into one another as problem solvers and into one's own decision making via the transcript.  And that social esteem competition may or may not be tacked onto this, just as it may or may not be tacked on to Narrativism or Simulationism.

yrs--
--Ben

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ben,

Everyone always focuses on the "social esteem" part of that definition. The real thing to focus on is the strategy and guts part.

I do think that the social esteem issue is present in the other modes, but is required in the Gamist one.

Best,
Ron

[pete_darby]

Well, I'd nitpick Ron to say that social esteem is a necessary engine for all social intercourse, and thus a (possibly muted) driver of all play regardless of CA, but gamism is driven by a more open acclaim than most sim play, and much nar play.

Am i right in saying that the only reason social esteem appears in the Gamism definition is that G play is about winning something, and in a socially co-operative past-time the only thing worth winning is esteem of your peers?

Anyway, we're all singing star spangled banner to the same tune, just arguing over whether it's "oh say can you see" or "oh say can you see".

[Ben Lehman]

Hi Ben,

Everyone always focuses on the "social esteem" part of that definition. The real thing to focus on is the strategy and guts part.

I do think that the social esteem issue is present in the other modes, but is required in the Gamist one.

BL>  You know, we're so close here, it's just frustrating.  It's frustrating enough that I feel like giving this another shot, even if only to explain why, while totally understanding and agreeing with everything you say about Gamism, reading the Gamism essay makes me tear at my hair as if it were colonized by sentient alien lice from Dimension X.

To get at the root of my problems, and I think the root of many other people's problems, I'm going to have to discuss my own gaming experiences, and give some context for how I read your writing about Gamism.

Points:
1) I have never played in a social-esteem competition free game.
2) In one of my play-groups, the game is reasonably-low competition, alternating Gamism and Narrativism on either a "who's GMing" or a "scene by scene" basis.  In another one of my play-groups, the game is very high-competition sim, with a somewhat jocular underlying gamist base.  The gamism is very low-comp, friendly stuff, but the sim is just vicious.  I've seen people not talk to each other for months (even years) on end because of tiffs about people not "playing in character" or "mixing in and out of game."  Yank off that competition knob sort of stuff.  (yes, and dysfunctional.  Funny you should mention that.)
3) Gamism is marginalized, constantly, in gamer-talk, and the basis of this marginalization is that gamism is supposedly all about PvP, whereas "real roleplaying" has no competition at all.  (Never mind that Gamism is often cooperative, and that... grumble... grumble...)  I think that we're all a bit touchy about this, because in the experience of most Gamist players this is nothing like the truth.

So, when I see Gamism, in the context of your three essays *and most Forge talk* as being identified directly with competition, and sometimes thus (a wrong assumption) the only type of CA that includes competition, well, I get alien lice.  Because my experience is totally the opposite -- I see gamism as a low-competition mode, roughly on par with narrativism, and character-immersion sim as the biggie for player comp.  The fact that the competition comes first in your sentence doesn't help this situation, as by the time I get to "strategy and guts" I've already gone into bull-in-china-shop mode.

So, can we say that Narrativism is an exploration of the player's ethics, morality, and guts?  Can we say that Gamism is an exploration of the player's strategy, tactics and guts?

I think (and hope) that we can.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  If you tell me that guts doesn't enter into narrativism, I'm going to hold up the text of Sorcerer.  Just so you know.

P.P.S.  Just a note to say that I definitely agree that we're in potato/potahto territory here.

[pete_darby]

Ben:

I don't think anyone's disagreeing over the "social esteem in all agenda" thing here... but I also don't think that jockeying over social esteem (and in some cases there, losing it for each other) is as closely identified with competition as you seem to.

Frex, the breakdown you describe over "doing sim wrong" seems like a deep disagreement over techniques: i don't see where competing for social esteem comes into it, except as a means to win the argument over which techniques are to be used.

In fact, I'd say the problem there was Gam-Sim clash: complaints about "mixing in and out game" and "not playing in character" sound to me like sim disapproval of gam tactics.

Could it be that when everyone's in Gam mode, the clash goes away because the sim players relax their insistence on pure diagetic play?

I'm seeing you say competition where I think I can see plain old disagreement... And I still reckon "guts" are more important to gam play than any other. but that may be the groups I've been with. Competition =/= disagreement.

[Valamir]

I'd have to agree with Pete.

In what way is throwing a tantrum and winding up on non speaking terms over a tif about playing in character competition for social esteem?

Does your group actually hold up in high esteem players who act like twits?

I suspect not.  In fact, I'll venture (let me know if I'm overstepping here) that you generally disparage such behavior and have lots of rude things to say about someone when they act like this.

So I'm not seeing this sort of behavior as being competing for social esteem.  Its seems to me to be regular old disagreement where one or more parties are using incredibly childish debating techniques.

Am I missing something?

[contracycle]

I have problems with the terms as they stand very similar to Ben's.

What I fund frustrating is that a lot - I mean really, a lot - of gamist play is totally non-competitive and has no element of social esteem at all because there is nobody there to observe it.  If I'm playing Civilisation, my board-tokens are competing with other baord-tokens, but there is not and never will be an audience for my success or failure.  Theres just me, playing for my satisfaction.

There I disagree that the social esteem issue is REQUIRED for Gamism.  Its not, IMO.  Its one of the things that gamists may engage in, just as it may be one of the things that any agenda practitioner may engage in.  

I guess what bugs me about this is that it impies that if there is a gamist player about, then social esteem competition will necessarily be a part of play.  And I don't buy that.  There does not seem to be any room for the self-satisfied gamist whose assessment is SELF-esteem based instead of socially based and who thus poses no threat to anyone, and will not be trying to score points off anyone.  They can sit there, into the Zen of their own performace, not much giving a damn what anyone thinks about what they are achieving or otherwise.

[Walt Freitag]

My understanding is that when self-esteem is at stake, that's just as validly Step On Up as when esteem in the eyes of peers or audience is at stake. "Social esteem" as a phrase might be a bit misleading (and the Gamism essay only uses it once); saying "esteem that exists at the social level" as the essay generally does might make it clearer that self-esteem qualifies.

I also believe it is possible (and not necessarily uncommon) to play conventional games, especially solo games, in a completely "non-gamist" way, playing without any esteem (self- or otherwise) at all at stake, playing for the sensory and cognitive experience, or the "flow" of it, alone.

- Walt

[Emily Care]

I guess what bugs me about this is that it impies that if there is a gamist player about, then social esteem competition will necessarily be a part of play.  And I don't buy that.  There does not seem to be any room for the self-satisfied gamist whose assessment is SELF-esteem based instead of socially based and who thus poses no threat to anyone, and will not be trying to score points off anyone.

Yes, a definition of gamism that precludes gentlemanly gamism is a biased one.  In addition to what Walt said, I'd point out that what's critical is that the esteem be at stake in some way, not what those stakes are. They may be your own sense of accomplishment, or they may be bragging rights until the next con.  

And it's spelled out pretty clearly in the Gamism essay that competition with respect to Step on Up (interpersonal among the players) or challenge (faced by the characters) are dials that can be high or low in gamism. It depends on the conflicts of interest present. That's worth quoting here:

Think of each level having a little red dial, from 1 to 11 - and those dials can be twisted independently. Therefore, four extremes of dial-twisting may be compared.

1. High competition in Step On Up plus low competition in Challenge = entirely team-based play, party style against a shared Challenge, but with value placed on some other metric of winning among the real people, such as levelling-up faster, having the best stuff, having one's player-characters be killed less often, getting more Victory Points, or some such thing. Most Tunnels & Trolls play is like this.

2. Low competition in Step On Up plus high competition in Challenge = characters are constantly scheming on one another or perhaps openly trying to kill or outdo another but the players aren't especially competing, because consequences to the player are low per unit win/loss. Kobolds Ate My Baby and the related game, Ninja Burger, play this way.

3. High competition in both levels = moving toward the Hard Core (see below), including strong rules-manipulation, often observed in variants of Dungeons & Dragons as well in much LARP play. A risky way to play, but plenty of fun if you have a well-designed system like Rune.

4.  Low competition in both levels = strong focus on Step On Up and Challenge but with little need for conflict-of-interest. Quite a bit of D&D based on story-heavy published scenarios plays this way. It shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind. Some T&T play Drifted this way as well, judging by many Sorcerer's Apprentice articles.

--Em

[contracycle]

I also believe it is possible (and not necessarily uncommon) to play conventional games, especially solo games, in a completely "non-gamist" way, playing without any esteem (self- or otherwise) at all at stake, playing for the sensory and cognitive experience, or the "flow" of it, alone.

Why do you say its non-gamist, though?

If self-esteem is construed as social, then I don't know what else to say.  It seems we permanently circle back to the necessary starting point that gamists are primarily engaged in a form of social status competition.  But as has already been pointed out, the same could be said for any public exercise under any agenda - recognition of the veracity of sim, recognition of a profound answer to premise.  Surely, all these procure some sort of social prestige - at which point ALL agenda's must be identified as a form of esteem competition.  It seems circular to me.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Why does everyone persistently ignore the crucial variable in my definition of Gamist play?

Personal strategy and guts.

It's not just about social esteem, it's social esteem about these qualities specifically, in application. What is so hard about understanding that?

Best,
Ron

[pete_darby]

Well, I think Walt's saying you can play non-rp games (computer, etc) either for the journey or the story, not necessarily the challenge.

So, not gamism, yeah?

And where comes this idea that gamist play involves some zero sum game of competing for social esteem? It's all about the group approval (which, as you rightly say, is a necessary component for all CA) for display of tactical skill & risk taking. Now, that's grabbing for social esteem, but not necessarily competing for it in terms of "beating the other players."

And sure, there's room for the solipsistic, self satisfied gamist, just like the self satisfied sim and self satisfied nar ("heh. I'm adressing my premise and nobody knows, ehehehehehehe"). But unless it's affecting the expression of the game, unless it affects play, it doesn't matter to the model.

EDIT: cross posted with Ron. What he said. The social esteem stuff is right up there at the Social Contract level of the model, we like playing with folks who like us.

[Valamir]

Those are 2 seperate points he's making Gareth.

1) Yes you can play solo gamist because self esteem is at stake.

2) But not all games played solo are played gamist with self esteem at stake, they may also be being played simply for the experience.


I don't know how you play Civ, but when I play it (and I play a ton of it) its and odd admixture.

I hate and resent it when a freaking computer pastes me.  Particularly when it was my own fault.  That's the gamist self esteem element.

But I really really hate multiplayer Civ, because there are alot of Gamey strategies to the game that surface when people are playing to win that detract from the overall experience of the game.


What that tells me is the step on up dial is cranked to different levels.  In multiplayer Civ where the primary goal is to prove how many hours of your life you've wasted getting really good at a computer game (step on up cranked high) players are willing to sacrifice the experience for the win.

I avoid multiplayer (and generally do with other games like Age of Wonder etc, to) because the Step on Up is cranked higher than I like.  When playing solo I can "step on up" only to extent I need to satisfy my own esteem issues and can then enjoy a more leisurely viable came play.

[Walt Freitag]

Why do I say it's non-gamist? Simple. "No esteem (self- or otherwise) at stake" equals no Step On Up equals not Gamist.

Of course, this is in reference to something other than role playing games, which means Agenda Theory desciptors like "Gamist" and "Not Gamist" are applicable only as loose metaphors. Taking it too literally would be like debating whether a tree is liberal or conservative (or whether John Kerry leans more toward deciduous or coniferous).

If self-esteem is construed as social, then I don't know what else to say. It seems we permanently circle back to the necessary starting point that gamists are primarily engaged in a form of social status competition. But as has already been pointed out, the same could be said for any public exercise under any agenda - recognition of the veracity of sim, recognition of a profound answer to premise. Surely, all these procure some sort of social prestige - at which point ALL agenda's must be identified as a form of esteem competition. It seems circular to me.

This question arises equally whether self-esteem is considered esteem at stake in Step On Up or not. Are you playing Sim to pursue a Sim agenda, or to garner esteem from other players (or self-esteem) for doing so successfully? It sounds like such an intractable question. And yet, in real life, it's usually pretty easy to tell which is in effect. When I run for a bus, I know very well whether I'm doing it because I really want to board that particular bus, or because I want to try to prove that I can catch it. I can often even tell that when I'm watching someone else run for a bus.

I think the issue has caused some confusion and error, though. For example, I don't accept the conventional assessment that playing to create humorous events that make other players laugh is Gamism, just because players can garner social esteem (or self-esteem) for succeeding in doing so. Players can also garner social esteem (or self-esteem) from succeeding in generating emotionally engaging narrative that makes other players say "wow" or "oh my god" by skillfully addressing Premise, yet no one ever argues that that makes playing to address Premise Gamism. You can't draw conclusions from the presence or absence of Step On Up alone; you have to consider what's prioritized.

"Does self-esteem count?" is a pretty straightforward question, by contrast. Imagine a Gamist player who somehow ends up playing with a Deep Immersionist group. The other players don't care at all about how badass his character is or how well he massages the system or how lucky his die rolls come out, and they repeatedly tell him so. He pulls a brilliant loophole and a natural 20 out of a hat that saves the whole party, and the other players roll their eyes and say "Geez, what a munchkin." He's getting no esteem from the other players. But he's still playing Gamist and is most likely going to continue playing Gamist if that's his agenda. Self-esteem is filling in.

- Walt

Edit to note: I cross-posted this with about five other people. I was responding to Gareth's (contracycle's) questions.

[Walt Freitag]

Why does everyone persistently ignore the crucial variable in my definition of Gamist play?

Personal strategy and guts.

It's not just about social esteem, it's social esteem about these qualities specifically, in application. What is so hard about understanding that?

Speaking for myself, I ignore it because personal strategy and guts appear to be universally applicable to, and creditable for, success in any difficult task, from doing a crossword puzzle to running a marathon. I don't see anyone claiming that social esteem about a player's physical appearance or their ability to add up the total of 3d6, or any other factor or accomplishment not involving personal strategy and guts, is relevant to Gamism. Making the other players laugh apparently does elicit social esteem about the person's strategy and guts, or else it wouldn't be repeatedly held up as Gamist behavior. That means that "specifically about personal strategy and guts" is actually so general it hardly seems to exclude anything.

- Walt